K
I have absolutely NO problem with this whatsoever. When kids are killing each other in the hallway, they need to keep them safe by any means necessary. This is not religious persecution - this is keeping people safe.Principals have the latitude to determine the difference between genuine religious observance and gang symbols, said Jim Haggart, executive assistant to the superintendent.
Ditto.So you have no problem with a government institution actively denying your child one of his First Amendment rights? How many Amendments should we scuttle in the name of safety?
*Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. – **Benjamin Franklin ***
If my child is wearing ANYTHING around his neck to signify that he’s in a gang, then absolutely.So you have no problem with a government institution actively denying your child one of his First Amendment rights? How many Amendments should we scuttle in the name of safety?
*Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. – **Benjamin Franklin ***
What part of this do you NOT GET? Never one single time did I EVER suggest taking away "ALL KIDS’ " rights. Show me where I said that, please. Because I never would.But taking away ALL KIDS’ First Amendment rights in the name of gang prevention is WRONG.
Is your child a gang member? Then I have no problems taking away HIS rights to use ANY symbol to communicate his affiliation.Taking away my child’s right to express his faith will not protect him from society’s violence.
I don’t believe that kids have first amendment rights when it comes to school. They don’t get to wear whatever clothing they want, with whatever foul slogans, etc. I would think that this type of thing could easily fall under the umbrella of “dress code”. I’m not saying that crucifixes should not be allowed, just putting in my :twocents: about teenagers’ First Amendment rights at school.So you have no problem with a government institution actively denying your child one of his First Amendment rights? How many Amendments should we scuttle in the name of safety?
*Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. – **Benjamin Franklin ***
Prove it. I re-read the article and I find NO reference to the banning of “ALL CRUCIFIXES for ALL KIDS”.…the school is banning ALL CRUCIFIXES for ALL KIDS!
NO one is talking about across the board banning in this article. You are sensationalizing the situation based on your own interpretation of made up ideas of what you think happened. Given the fact that all we have to go on is what is contained in THIS article, I see no evidence of the banning of “ALL CRUCIFIXES for ALL KIDS”.Equinoa said religious items are not banned. But, as principal, he reserves the right to ask a student to remove, or cover up, any item he feels could indicate gang affiliation even a crucifix.
The school district backs him up.
Principals have the latitude to determine the difference between genuine religious observance and gang symbols, said Jim Haggart, executive assistant to the superintendent.
“We’re not trying to squash any religious symbols and we’re not trying to get into religion, but we are trying to get into student safety, and that’s what we’re really concerned about,” Haggart said.
so in anotherwards its not like the principal is going to tell every student he sees in the hall to “take off your crucifix”, rather he would only do so if “he had other information” like if the crucifix was decorated in a fashion that showed obvious gang affiliation or if the person wearing it was a known gang member.Equinoa said he could not comment on specific student discipline issues. But he said any directive to a student to remove or cover any item, religious or otherwise, would not be made without other information.